13 Responses

and frankly, the market for major media companies ain't that healthy right now.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the irrefutable economic argument against putting TVNZ on the block if you're not a purist Randroid who thinks the government has no business being in the media game at all. It might be hyperbole to say putting TVNZ on the block wouldn't cover the redundancy bill, but not by that much.

And NZonAir has been explicit about that by differentiating its funding of content and platforms (such as RNZ). Can’t see why we would need another funding organisation to do the same tasks.

Yeah, the stuff around NZ On Air is messy and presents a risk of interfering with some sound thinking that agency has done.

Although it would (a) seemingly extend funding to public-good journalism without TV-like content attached, and (b) theoretically provide a stronger and more independent voice to government on the actual level of funding necessary to maintain the system. NZ On Air has an independent board, but it’s very much beholden to the ministry.

I would also say younger ones too. The ad-free children's content was instantly missed in our house.

And middle age ones too. It was missed in our household. We watch a lot of Maori TV now for the same non-commercial, non-mainstream type content reasons that we used to watch TVNZ 7.

I love what Labour is proposing. I got so sick of all that TVNZ charter wranglings of past governments that made no real difference because you can't be a commercial public broadcaster to my mind. Can't wait for the new public broadcast offering.

In any case, it seems easier to create a new BBC/ABC/PBS-style channel or channels, than attempt to retool the existing TVNZ channels. What I'd also like to see is a new Royal Commission on NZ On Air and the wider media industry, possibly taking after the Leveson and Finkelstein inquiries. When the 1986 one reported back, the Internet was still a university/military research project.